Article Examines IP Territorial Jurisdiction in Online Infringement Suits

The Delhi High Court, in 2025, in the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., and earlier in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Kwick Living (I) (P) Ltd., raised significant legal questions regarding the determination of territorial jurisdiction in intellectual property infringement suits involving online platforms in India.

The article highlights the ongoing judicial effort to define territorial jurisdiction for intellectual property (IP) infringement cases that arise from online activities. The Delhi High Court, in Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., advanced the reasoning from World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection, holding that for e-commerce, the situs of carrying on business extends to every place where a commercial transaction could be concluded. While the article title suggests a specific dispute was resolved, the broader legal doctrine concerning online territorial jurisdiction remains open for further development, and the specific outcomes of the mentioned cases are not reported in the excerpt.

This evolving jurisprudence is critically important for IP rights holders, e-commerce businesses, and legal professionals across India. The inherently borderless nature of online platforms challenges traditional jurisdictional principles, which are often tied to physical presence or the place where a cause of action arises. Clarity on this doctrine is essential for determining the appropriate forum for litigation, managing legal costs, and ensuring effective enforcement of IP rights in the digital economy. The Delhi High Court's expansive interpretation of "carrying on business" for e-commerce could significantly impact how online IP disputes are litigated nationwide.

The legal context for these cases involves the interplay of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 20 CPC provides general rules for jurisdiction, while Sections 62 and 134 offer specific provisions for IP suits, allowing a plaintiff to institute a suit where they "actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain." The key parties involved are the Delhi High Court, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Kwick Living (I) (P) Ltd., Kohinoor Seed Fields India (P) Ltd., Veda Seed Sciences (P) Ltd., and the precedent set in World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection.

Attorneys advising clients on IP enforcement, particularly those dealing with online infringement or operating e-commerce businesses, must closely monitor the developing jurisprudence of the Delhi High Court and other High Courts on territorial jurisdiction. Businesses should review their online terms of service and operational models to understand potential jurisdictional exposures. The expansive interpretation of "carrying on business" for e-commerce implies that IP holders may have broader options for filing suits, but it also means businesses could face litigation in multiple jurisdictions. Practitioners should advise clients on proactive strategies for asserting or defending jurisdiction in online IP disputes, considering the implications of the "situs of carrying on business" extending to every place a transaction can be concluded.